“Our understanding is there was no release,” he says. As to the right of privacy, you can waive it by your actions or by his parents’ actions in allowing him to be photographed.”Įlden’s attorney James Marsh, whose practice focuses on victims of sex abuse, insists permission wasn’t given. “But, if is there is no release, it does not mean he has a claim for child pornography. “I think it is highly unlikely that a record company would use a photograph for an album cover without verifying the existence of a release signed by the parents,” he says.
Nirvana, The Supremes, Ma Rainey, Slick Rick to Receive Grammy Lifetime Achievement Awardsīryan Sullivan, an entertainment litigation partner at Early Sullivan, says the suit is “ridiculous,” and that even if there wasn’t a written agreement, which he doubts, Elden’s claims are weak. Elden alleges the image depicts him “like a sex worker - grabbing for a dollar bill that is positioned dangling from a fishhook in front of his nude body with his penis explicitly displayed.” He also claims he had a “reasonable expectation that the images depicting him would remain private” and maintains his legal guardians didn’t sign a release authorizing the use of the images. On Tuesday, Spencer Elden filed a lawsuit in California federal court against Nirvana, Universal Music Group, Warner Records, music mogul David Geffen, the band members (even the late Kurt Cobain via his estate and three individuals who oversee it, including his widow Courtney Love), the photographer and others. While it makes for splashy headlines, attorneys consulted by The Hollywood Reporter say the complaint will likely be dismissed early. The naked swimming baby on the iconic Nirvana Nevermind cover is now a 30-year-old man - and he’s suing just about everyone connected to the album with claims that the photo amounts to child pornography and an invasion of his privacy.
0 kommentar(er)
